Saturday, September 30, 2017

A sailor friend of mine recently shared this
defense of the Jones Act, a surviving relic of early 1900’s regulation which
mandates (among other things) that all shipping between US ports be done on
American-made vessels staffed by American sailors.My response is below:

“Protectionism is always bad policy.I understand you’re in the
industry and would never want your working conditions to be any less safe or
pleasant than they already are.But
labor laws impose costs in any industry, and that necessarily exposes all regulated
industries to competition from foreign producers not subject to such laws.That tradeoff isn’t unique to shipping; yet
in no other industry is it thought sensible to ban foreign competition
outright!

I live in a country where work hours are
long and OSHA regulations don’t really appear to be enforced.As such, I suspect Hyundai can both pay and
treat their workers less well than Ford has to pay and treat theirs, enabling
Hyundai to produce comparable cars at a lower price.That may suck for Ford, but it’s a risk the
US legislators assumed when they decided to pass those laws.Nobody thinks that justifies banning Hyundai,
and it’s widely agreed doing so would hurt American consumers and foreign
workers by a much larger margin than the status quo hurts Ford.Why is shipping different?

Your article clarifies that nobody
opposes temporarily lifting the Jones act during times of emergency, which is
good, and which Trump has now done.But
doesn’t that concession basically admit what economic studies have proven time
and again: that the rule raises the cost of living on Puerto Rico (and Hawaii,
for that matter)?And if you so, doesn’t
supporting a temporary suspension of the act – but not long-term or permanent one
– basically boil down to saying “it’s not
fair to impose economic hardship on millions of people for the next two weeks
or so – but thereafter, it’s perfectly okay”?How does that square with the reality that
the rebuilding process is going to take years, or even with the moral
implications of poverty and cost-of-living during normal times?

With a shout-out to Don Boudreaux (who I quote below), suppose
I offer you a deal: I will agree to protect only those American workers who in
return agree to stop buying foreign-made products.So American sailors and shipbuilders can
retain their Jones Act monopoly…

“only if they, in exchange, agree to
stop buying the likes of Toyota cars, Samsung televisions, Ryobi hand tools,
Ikea furniture, Shell gasoline, Amstel beer, vacations to Cancun, and musical
recordings by foreign artists such as the Beatles, Elton John, and k.d.
Lang. They must also promise to stop buying the likes of bananas,
cinnamon, and vanilla and, indeed, even American-made food items if these are
shipped to their favorite restaurants and supermarkets in foreign-made trucks –
or in trucks equipped with tires made by Michelin, Bridgestone, or some other
job-destroying foreign company. These workers would be permitted to drink
only Hawaiian coffee; they must quit drinking the Colombian, Guatemalan, and
Ethiopian coffees that they’ve become accustomed to drink. Oh, and
absolutely no diamond jewelry, as those gems come from Africa.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

My
recent post on healthcare included a section sharply critical of the AMA.I explained why doctor salaries (and thus,
healthcare costs) are inflated by licensure requirements, and highlighted some
of the ways the AMA is historically and presently to blame for that.I’ve since done some reflection on why the
AMA behaves as it does, and would like to clarify my impression of its motives.

Whenever
we allow professionals to serve as gatekeepers to their profession, cynical
minds like mine are quick to point out the potential for outright financial corruption.Their initial fear – that licensing boards
will suppress competition for-profit – is understandable and perhaps even
healthy.But it is also an incomplete
model of regulator behavior, and one which (if focused on exclusively) risks weakening
the overall argument against centralized regulation of market entry. Regulator
conflict of interest is not limited to pure graft.

Really,
the incentive for financial gain is tied
up with a deep human desire to validate our own importance and the importance
of our work, which in the case of technical experts leads them to exaggerate the importance of their own expertise.This leads to a mutually intensifying
interplay between profit and snobbery: if the expert can convince himself that
the would-be market entrant is truly so inferior that the public must be
protected from them, the financial gain of shutting them out seems more like a
reward for their public service.

In
each of the policies I described in my earlier articles and many others, the
AMA means well.It is comprised of
people who have devoted their lives to healing others, and conceive of
themselves as guarantors of quality in the healthcare industry.But this is the danger of technocracy: the
experts become so enraptured with their subtle intricacies of their field that
they come to exaggerate the need for that knowledge, at the expense of
competing considerations.In the case of
healthcare, the competing consideration is access – through both cost and
patient convenience/proximity – which is part of why American healthcare today
is very high quality, but endlessly expensive.

The
incentives faced by AMA members are not unique to doctors or healthcare;
really, they’re a problem with licensure laws in general. Wine experts will advise you to buy a $50
bottle over a $5 box of Franzia, because they
truly believe the difference is worth it.Gun lovers will tell you to spend hundreds of dollars on all sorts of
accessories – scopes, grips, special ammo, etc. – to achieve the most marginal
improvements in accuracy, because THEY can tell the difference.Music lovers will stick up their nose at
generic iPod headphones, and coffee lovers at McDonalds coffee, and fashion
lovers at a cheap suit, and all of this
is fine when these people are making purchasing decisions for themselves.But when you empower a narrow band of wealthy
experts in a narrow, lucrative field to make cost/benefit and risk tolerance
decisions for everyone in society, they
will always prioritize higher quality
over cost reduction at a rate that’s simply unacceptable to those outside their
geeky circle of enthusiasts.

Healthcare
is no different, and a century of regulation written by those most passionate
about healthcare is a huge part of why it costs so damn much. It’s not that
there’s no way to provide it cheaply, it’s that those ways are illegal.The AMA stubbornly opposes any encroachment
on the licensed general practitioner monopoly based on the most far-fetched
risks of decreased quality or safety, even when those measures would yield
comparatively massive increases in affordability or convenience.The FDA does the same with drug approval
decisions.Nobody wins from that
tradeoff except the regulators.

The
dangers of technocracy are multiplied (and yet easier to overlook) when the
field in question is seen as a public good, or when the providers are seen as
selfless public servants driven by non-profit motives.

For
some reason, people seem more willing to accept a tiered system of cost-quality
tradeoffs in the markets for cars, phones or banking services than they do in
the markets for education or healthcare.Providing a minimum level of education and healthcare to everyone in
society is seen by many as a moral imperative.Maybe it is; but, that doesn’t make the cost-quality tradeoff disappear!When policymakers impose quality-assurance
regulation out of pious refusal to accept anything less than top-notch
education and healthcare for their constituents, it inevitably proves counterproductive
to the parallel goal of universal provision.

When wealthy business owners or Wall Street executives get in
bed with federal regulators to protect their own incomes at the expense of
consumer choice, progressives are the first to cry foul.The left sees plainly how the state is a tool
for corruption when the industry in question is commonly associated with
greed.But when the industry in question
pertains to the provision of things liberals value, they too often cannot bring
themselves to suspect the intentions of those rigging the game, accepting
instead the most cursory hand-waving about consumer protection.They should not be so naïve.Whether driven by profit or by
validation-bias, strict licensure requirements keep doctor wages artificially
high at the expense of the most vulnerable in society.Deregulating the profession would amount to
precisely the sort of rich-to-poor wealth transfer the left should be able to
get behind.

One of the earliest entries on this blog (which I won’t link to now because the
writing makes me wince – but hey, I was 18!) was entitled Bigotry Against
Bigots.In a jumbled, rambling and
exaggeratory way, high-school me expressed my opposition to “Hate Crime”
legislation stiffening legal penalties for crimes committed with allegedly
prejudiced motives, and touched on the hypocrisy of not tolerating intolerance
through a CISV anecdote.

Recent events in Charlottesville and the ensuing public debate on the proper
response to hate speech have prompted me to revisit and develop those ideas.Specifically, I’d like to address Karl Popper’s
“paradox of tolerance” – shared by many illiberal would-be censors in the wake
of the kerfuffle – which Wikipedia summarizes thusly:

“The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945,
is a decision theory paradox.The
paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be
tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical
conclusion tht in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be
intolerant of intolerance.”

That conclusion is wrongheaded for two reasons.First, intolerant segments of otherwise tolerant societies are not
always large or strong enough to threaten the tolerant majority; and second,
for so long as the intolerant remain relatively powerless, their viewpoints can
be more effectively counteracted through measured tolerance (allowing them to
speak and then engaging in firm but respectful dialogue) than through
intolerant means like censorship or forceful repression.

Writing in the immediate aftermath of World War II, Popper could be forgiven
for fretting “when
a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will
eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant.” But WWII merely proves that is possible, not
that it’s inevitable; as written, the claim is pretty vague, and doesn’t
specify just what “limits” he’s referring to.

If the
limit were the initiation of force, I would agree; we should beintolerant of violence.But that’s widely accepted, and doesn’t seem
to be what people are using Popper to argue.

Rather, Popper’s paradox is being shared on my timeline as justification for repressing
intolerant speech, like that at the Neo-Nazi
and Klan rallies preceding the murder in Charlottesville.But from my view, there’s very little reason
to fear those groups are anywhere near strong enough to seize power or threaten
our norms.Consider: “A recent report by the Anti-Defamation
League found a grand total of 42 Klan groups currently active in 33 states, most claiming fewer than 25 members. Even
that small remnant is disorganized, squabbling and fractious.” The numbers
for Nazi groups are similarly small.It
just doesn’t follow that if we allow these groups to keep speaking and hosting
rallies, our “ability
to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed.” Really? With
what army?

Not only is censorship unnecessary, it’s also counterproductive.Ostracized extremist groups recruit off the
belief that they are being oppressed for speaking truth to power.When we jail them for marching, prevent them
from speaking or otherwise censor their message, we feed right into that belief
and actually make their arguments more plausible/convincing to those on the
fence.At the same time, the act of *attempting” to silence
political speech actually does quite the opposite by creating a larger controversy
and ensuing media stir, which only amplifies the hate groups’ megaphone and
allows them to reach a broader audience.Publicizing fringe ideologies to the greater public while at the same
time lending them just cause for complaint (the infringement of their First
Amendment rights) is not a good way to reduce these groups membership or
contain the proliferation of their ideas.

It’s much
more effective to let them speak (and then explain why they’re full of shit to
anyone who will listen!) than it is to banish them underground where their
nonsense can proliferate unrebuked. Former hate
group members tend to agree
with this view.

Finally, for what it’s worth, I think even Popper agreed with it too.He’s quoted in this
article as saying:

“I do not
imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant
philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them
in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.”

He leaves
open the possibility that intolerance can be countered by rational argument and
social pressure, and makes clear that this is the preferable solution, when
possible.His paradox only refers to the
times when it’s not possible, lest radical Nazi-like groups seize national
power. From my view, we remain very far from such times.

I recently came across this
video, which is perhaps the video equivalent of the
article I responded to a few months back.The text surrounding it in my Facebook screen read as follows:

Title: Teen
Activist OWNS Sen. Jeff Flake At Town Hall

Shared by: NowThis PoliticsCaption:“I’m wondering…why it’s your right to take away
my right to choose Planned Parenthood.” –
This young woman absolutely schooled her Republican Senator.

This is an astounding video.Every part of it – from the preparatory caption,
to the source and its business model, to the mind-numbingly stupid question she
actually asks, to the raucous applause she receives for it, to the blithe “you
go girl!” euphoria with which it was shared tens of thousands of times – could stand alone as an ever-more
depressing testament to the shitty-ness of our public discourse in this
country. To borrow a phrase from the sort of people who shared the video, “let’s
unpack this”, shall we?

First, let’s talk about what this “youth activist” actually says. The
“schooling” of Senator Flake has two parts: the statement of facts, and then
the actual question.Interestingly, the
facts have almost nothing to do with the question, so let’s start with the
facts she chooses to state.You can read
them on the video subtitle, but here’s a convenient transcript for anyone who
prefers plain sentences to five-word phrases that alternate between yellow and
white:

“I just want to state some facts…um…so I’m a
young woman, and you’re a middle-aged man; I’m a person of color, and you’re
white; um, I come from a background of poverty and I didn’t always have parents
to guide me through life.You come from
privilege.”

Leave aside for now that “you come from privilege” is far closer to opinion than
anything objectively factual.Also leave
aside the matter of just what color she happens to be, if not white (which remains
an eyebrow-raising question from this camera angle, and poses Turing-test
questions about how much white privilege she retains herself).

What most warrants ridicule here is telling a
United States Senator that you’re going to preface your question with a
statement of facts, and then rather than presenting the sort of empirical,
evidentiary “facts” that may actually have bearing on the matter at hand,
choosing instead to highlight the contrasting physical descriptions of the
Senator and yourself.Yes – the age,
gender and skin color of you and Senator Flake are technically “facts.”But they are also instantly observable facts
to anyone with eyes, readily apparent to everyone present, and consequently do
not need to be pointed out.And yet the
audience’s cheers and applause make clear that from these “facts” they consider
the argument already won.The entire
endeavor of stating those facts is purely performative; no engagement with Flake’s
ideas or opinions was even attempted.

But
that’s hardly surprising in today’s climate; on its own, it wouldn’t have warranted
a rebuttal blog post. What got my blood pressure up was her actual question:

“So, I’m wondering…why it’s your right to take away my right to
choose Planned Parenthood and to choose no-copay birth control? So if you could
explain that to me, that would be great.”

Marvel at the temerity of that question. Gawk at the astounding euphemism of “my right to choose no-copay birth control.”Gape in wide wonder at how the “right
to choose _____” became casually interchangeable with the “right to choose free _____” without anyone in the audience so much as blinking
an eye.Because make no mistake, free
birth control on demand is precisely what this brat is so indignantly
demanding.

No legislator in Arizona – nor anywhere else I
know of – has proposed to take away Deja Foxx’s right to call up any insurance
company that does business in her state, and purchase from them an insurance
plan which includes no-copay coverage for birth control.By any recognizable meaning of that phrase,
her “right to choose no-copay birth
control” remains entirely intact and unthreatened (as does her right to choose
birth control generally, draconian prescription requirements notwithstanding).Sadly, this is not what Deja Foxx actually
wants. She wants a “no-copay plan” in
the sense that “someone besides me pays for the plan.”

In all likelihood, she doesn’t much care who that someone else is.She’d probably prefer wealthy taxpayers pay,
through Medicare or Medicaid or a directly socialized healthcare system that
includes unlimited free birth control on demand.But short of that, she’s content with her
employer paying, or her parents’ employer paying, through force of government
dictate.What has her panties so up in a
wad is not that Senator Jeff Flake and his cronies want to take away her right
to choose anything; it’s that they want to give other people the right to
choose NOT to give her free shit.

To be fair, what constitutes meaningful
“choice” in a world where many people cannot afford everything they’d like to
have has long been a matter of philosophical dispute.Some hold that choice exists so long as it is
not constrained by human violence or the threat thereof, whereas others contend
it is only possible when coupled with the means to acquire – or “access to” –
the desired choice. But traditionally,
responsible leftists have at least distinguished between those two conceptions.“Pro-choice” people have not typically argued
that abortion must be free – only that it must be legal.When drug war opponents argue that people
should be free to choose what to put in their own bodies, they are not arguing
that marijuana must also be accessible free of charge.The popular “woman’s body, woman’s choice”
refrain has always been used to agitate for bodily autonomy – not universal
healthcare.

The “right to choose X” is one thing, and the “right to free X,” is a step
further. Calling for a “right to choose free X,” is a bait and switch deliberately
conflating two separate philosophical claims, and deceitfully hijacking the
verbiage of the common in service of the much more radical.

***

Now, let’s talk about “rights,” and how
completely meaningless the word has become by the end of her sentence.Even if people did have a right to “choose
free” birth control, the question “why is it your right to take away my right to ____” is
maddeningly stupid for at least three reasons.

First, it’s stupid because it begs the
question.Rights are exclusive; by
definition, they end where another person’s rights begin.It can never be one person’s right to take away another person’s
right by definition, and we all intuitively understand this.So to frame any question as “why do you have
the right to take away my right” is to presuppose one’s own contention that
their actions infringe upon one’s rights (and thereby render the entire question
deliberately unanswerable – rhetorical and unserious).

Second, it’s stupid because she’s using the
word “rights” interchangeably with “my values.” Rights aren’t just things it
would be nice if everyone could have; traditionally, they’re things we already have
from birth, which can either be protected or taken away.She’s basically saying “why is it your right
to take away this thing I really want,” without any coherent litmus test for determining
which wants count as rights and which do not.

Finally, it’s stupid because of the
preamble.By preempting a question on
what rights we have with a “statement of facts” regarding what privilege we have,
she strongly implies that that’s relevant to the question– that is, that our rights are dependent or
conditional on how much privilege we do or do not have. This runs directly
contrary to both the constitution and the egalitarian principle of “equal
rights” to which the left typically appeals.

***

The final thing I want to talk about here is NowThis.We could also talk about AJ+, or Mic.com, or BuzzFeed,
or Salon, or any of the equivalent ““““““““““““““news outlets””””””””””””””
that churn out 20-90 second videos designed for social media, because all their
videos follow the same predictable formula.

The first part of the formula is brevity.The videos must be short enough not to lose
the attention of halfhearted social media slacktivists pretending they actually
care.

The second part of the formula is
subtitles.The videos are always overlaid
in boldfaced white and yellow text, in case the viewer is at work or in class
and can’t turn the sound up (for risk they are caught slacking off on whatever
they’re supposed to be doing instead).

The third part of the formula is the illusion
of news. The videos always pretend to be
“reporting” on an important and developing story, instead of what they’re
really doing, which is selling emotions that left-wing people want to
feel.This is crucial because it allows
the viewer to believe they are being responsible citizens by educating
themselves on worldly issues, instead of just seeking out an echo chamber
affirming their own brilliance and empathy.

The fourth part of the formula is a clickbaity
title and caption, which is always some variation of the same sentence:

I mourn for the days when this formula would
have been called out for the lazy, arrogant, feel-good,
remind-me-how-right-I-am bullshit it is, instead of just blending into an ever
more cacophonous fake-news background.A
generation of thinkers is being eagerly reassured that these videos constitute
responsible social awareness.A
generation of college students consider themselves informed on the issues
because they have watched them.One of
them is Deja Foxx, and fake news is as responsible for creating her dumb question
as it is for publicizing it.

A friend
of mine recently posted this
link on social media, in which an activist politely answers a question
about white privilege by comparing it to “height privilege.” Here’s the
conversation that ensued:

Me: This fascinates me because I see height and
whiteness as fundamentally different.If
you don’t mind, I have some sincere questions for whoever is interested in
entertaining them (not rhetorical, I promise, just genuinely interested in people’s
perspectives here).

If height is a privilege, is intelligence also a privilege?If not, what distinguishes them?If so, are there any differences between
people which AREN’T privilege?

Phrased differently, is there such thing as merit?

Her response: I'm glad
you asked, Andrew! Intelligence is a complicated one to unpack. In most Western
societies what is deemed "intelligence" privileges White people. The
ways we are taught, the things we are taught, the ways our intelligence is
assessed are all part of a larger system that, unfortunately, is based off of
the notion that White people and all things they are good at are superior.
Example: an SAT question that asks about an equestrian match. Or the cost of
ski rentals. Or other things that have been reserved for the wealthy (in
American context the wealthy = White). A kid who has never had an interaction
with horses, and doesn't know what equestrian means is going to fall short. But
that doesn't necessarily mean he is unintelligent.

But anyways. to your larger question. Is there such a thing as merit? YES!
Absolutely! No one wants to take away the accomplishments and the excellence
that exists in privileged identities. But its a matter of examining and
interrogating the "measuring stick". If the measure of accomplishment
and achievement is biased to see "height" or Whiteness as the
pinnacle of success, then of course those who are not those things are going to
seem "less than". Even if that is not actually the case. I.e. why
would you judge a fish, a monkey, and an elephant on their ability to climb a
tree? They are all skilled, important and useful for different reasons. Height
is still a good thing. But we can't have whole societies built to cater to the
tall when short people exist! Does that make sense?

And finally. There are DEFINITELY advantage-creating differences between people
who are not privileged. I am privileged because I grew up middle class, I am
college educated, I am able bodied, I am heterosexual and I am employed. Some
of these are earned, some of these were mere luck of the draw. But these are
all privileges that I must use for good. I can't pretend that my ability to
walk in to a building and not worry about there being an elevator or a
wheelchair ramp isn't a privilege just because I am Black. I have to own and
use my privilege to listen to those who are speaking up about their oppression
and then help them make changes to make a more just & fair society.

Me: Thanks for the thoughtful and cheerful reply!It seems like you’re saying *the way we measure intelligence* is
flawed in ways which benefit white people, which seems likely to me.But just to clarify, that’s still a
subcomponent of white privilege, right?And noting that white privilege extends to the ways we measure
intelligence, or to types of intelligence we value, is still different from
alleging an entirely separate, racially-independent axis of experience (like
sex) along which some people have socially conferred privilege over others,
right?

Basically I’m asking whether “smart privilege” is a thing for you (perhaps
related to “neurotypical privilege,” which I’ve seen discussed a lot).Suppose we found ways to measure intelligence
in fairer, more nuanced ways that level out the racial disparities in measured
intelligence levels. Surely, some people
would still be smarter than others, right?At least in certain ways?And
surely those smarter people would have an easier time with wide variety of
tasks, which would better position them to succeed in a wide variety of
endeavors?If you agree with that, I’m asking
whether the resulting inequality of outcomes is unjust and oppressive *in the
same way* racial inequality is.

And if you don’t - if you think intelligence is purely an arbitrary social
construct, such that no mental traits or ways of thinking are innately
advantageous or objectively superior to any other and everyone’s equally smart
(only in different ways) – I’m asking are there any other distinguishing traits
among persons which ARE innately advantageous or preferable?Is it ever just BETTER to be one way than the
other, and if so, could you give an example?

Her: ahh. okay interesting question. I don't think
that it is inherently advantageous to be one way versus another along any
particular axis of identity. I honestly and truly believe that all ranges of
[insert identity marker] are necessary and important to have a vibrant and
functioning society. I believe that is why animals tend to not be solitary
beings. Cunning in one, strength in another, skill in x, talent in y. They all
come together to build a society or pack that's sum is better than the individual
parts.

I believe that my position is grounded in a world where the society I live in
has tackled some important issues--i.e. the eradication of fatal diseases, the
creation of safe housing, etc. And although one might say "these things
were achieved through the privileging of specific types of
intelligence/grooming of scientists and architects and mathematicians of the
*typical* variety" but I don't believe that we wouldn't be at this very
point in achievement or advancement if we had a society that (from the
beginning) had welcomed and appreciated ALL types of intelligence or strength
or cunning etc.

The reality is that none of these identity markers in the American context (and
arguably the post-colonial world at large) are free from the influence of white
supremacy. Identity is intersectional. Meaning that we cannot observe and
measure components of one's identity independently from one another. Even
subjects like science have historically been used to privilege white
supremacist values and world views (re: eugenics). Its hard to argue that our
understanding of anything is *not* in one way or another a social construct.

I guess my main point is that we don't have to look at things through a
capitalist framing. It doesn't have to be a measurement of the winners/losers
or the best/worst. I think that people are too complex for us to have a
standard set of markers that we look for every individual to have. I think this
is where our society gets it wrong and this is where the conversation gets complicated.
Then, how do we tap in to the full potential of individuals if we do not have a
standard set of questions/guidelines? What does that society look like? How
does it function? I'm not sure I have the answers. But I'm sure there's someone
out there who's brain can conceptualize the solutions. They just have to have
the opportunity to be asked.

I get what you're saying. And I hope I am making myself clear in my responses
lol.

Her friend:I was going
to say although its nice to think about things in theoretical vacuums, the
reality is (as you said Ty) identity is not singular. There are many parts to
each persons identity, and each one's pertinence is shaped by their experiences,
upbringing, subculture, society, and other "levels of privilege" the
other aspects of their identity have (i.e., black men not seeing the male
privilege they have because things are seen through a racial lens). I think its
similar to the way Aristotle tried to define the archetype of a perfect form of
man but it was based on his perception of what perfect is. Our need to rank
things as better/worse, greater/lesser, etc etc, prevents us from seeing (and
valuing) things as they actually are. As to your point Andrew, about whether
there are some privileges that are maybe "less privileged" than
others (is this what you were going for?), because you can't untie race from
gender from ability from SES from sex (etc, etc), its impossible (and inappropriate
I would think) to try to look at things or compare systems of oppression like
that.

Me: Great responses, both of you.More often than not, I think the general
message you’re sending is exactly what society needs to hear.Too often we derive our personal pride
through distinction, as if validating our own self-worth requires denigrating
those unlike us.It shouldn’t!Most of us have something valuable to
contribute, and a more tolerant and open society would not be so quick to label
certain traits as undesirable.If we
could all just appreciate that everyone is different, without those differences
necessarily making anyone better or worse than another on net, the world could
make more productive use of the tremendous diversity in human interests and
abilities and just be a happier place in general. So, agreed there.I also totally get how different axes of
privilege can intersect, to the compounded advantage of those with multiple
privileged traits and exacerbated disadvantage of those lacking multiple
privileged traits.

I still
think that’s a separate question than how many axes of privilege exist, though,
and the answer I’m gleaning from your responses on that is essentially “infinite”
– that there are at least as many types of privilege as there are advantage-creating
differences between human beings, which is as many chromosomes as there are in
our DNA.This is where our views part,
and unfortunately where I’m reluctant to join in activism alongside people I
typically agree with. To me, using privilege as an umbrella term for any trait which
makes some people’s lives easier than others conflates very different sorts of
social advantages, which are not equally problematic, and which we as social
reformers should afford different levels of concern.

Some examples to illustrate…men have the privilege of going about their daily
lives without worrying very much about rape or sexual assault. This privilege
originates from the fact that men systematically rape women and get away with
it, which in turn originates from patriarchal mindsets and toxic masculinity.In other words, the privilege is created when
some people treat others in cruel, illogical and unfair ways.That’s unjust.That’s oppressive.

But other alleged “privilege” seems to originate not from how we treat one
another so much as from random assignment in the lottery of birth, prior to and
independent of any interaction with other human beings.Some people have good eyesight, others need
glasses.Some are born with no
legs.Some are more genetically prone to
certain diseases.Some are athletic and
coordinated, others are clumsy.Some are
found sexually attractive by the opposite sex, others not as much.And yes, I’d argue some people are smarter
than others, or at least more inclined to certain types of mental tasks.Many of these traits are influenced by social
constructs, sure.But it’s still clear
to me that even if there ever comes a day when everyone treats one another with
equal dignity and respect and open-mindedness, some people will still be naturally better equipped for success at
certain endeavors than others.

(Of course, success can still be defined in many ways, so people will be better
suited for *different types* of success.Some may have an easier time succeeding in school, others in sports,
others with making friends, others with finding a boyfriend/girlfriend, others
with making money, others with attaining power, etc.But at least within each of these pursuits,
some will succeed more than others no matter how society is constructed around
them.You can conceive of that as “winners
and losers” if you like, but to me it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.
Anyway…)

To me, that’s not oppression!If some people
are underprivileged because other people are mistreating them, whereas other
people are underprivileged because the lottery of birth dealt them a rotten
hand, those two situations provoke different responses in me.If an innocent person is struck by lightning
and dies, that’s a tragedy that makes me sad; but if an innocent person is
murdered, that’s an injustice that makes me MAD!Likewise, when I see a mentally disabled
person struggling to find a job due to their disability, I feel sympathy
because they’re unlucky; but, when I see a black person struggling to find a
job due to prejudice, I feel indignant because they’ve been wronged.We may still want to help the suffering regardless of how they came to
suffer, but systematic oppression demands fixing in a more morally imperative
way to me because mistreatment at the hands of other humans is clearly the
culprit.

That’s what fascinated me about comparing whiteness to height.Yes, both create advantages for some people
over others.But whereas whiteness is
clearly an arbitrary and undeserved privilege resulting from the unfair treatment
of black people, from my view, the advantages (and disadvantages!) of being
tall are basically innate, and aren’t really imposed on you by the behaviors of
other people in society.Tall people had
an easier time reaching high things long before civilization even developed!Is it really oppression for storeowners with limited
floorspace to stack items atop one another, at heights above whatever the
shortest in society can reach?To me,
making that comparison almost downplays the injustice of racial oppression by
making it seem no different than everyday problems faced by everyone everywhere.As a person of average height, it’s perfectly
okay to me that I will never be a starting center on the basketball team, and I
think it would be silly to go around campaigning for change there.Some people get luckier genes - ce la vie! That’s
not the attitude we want to encourage for racial oppression.

I’m sort of rambling and don’t have a neat way to tie this up, so I guess I’ll
try one last time with a question.What about
the identity marker of character?Some
people are more generous, others more selfish.Some are vain, others humble. Some are diligent, others lazy. Some are
more “woke” and empathetic, while others are ignorant and indifferent to the
plight of the suffering.I’ll ask again:
it ever BETTER to be one than the other?Is there such thing as virtue?Is
it okay to have “whole societies built to cater to the selfless and diligent”
despite the fact that selfish and lazy people exist? Or are all of those differences also just
neurodiversity, arising from different cultural inputs,
with our personal moral preferences as arbitrary as our preferred hair color?

And, the follow up…if it’s still the latter, how can
there be such thing as merit? If the work of pursuing a more just society is
essentially akin to stripping anyone’s ability to succeed (or “win”) where
others fail (or “lose”), what successes remain for anyone to take pride in?
Isn’t that essentially telling everyone who gets good grades that they’re
merely lucky society is oriented to favor people who think like them? and every
basketball star that they’re merely lucky society created sports that were
easier for tall or fast people? and every charity worker they are lucky their
society values generosity over selfishness? and every social justice activist
that the violent racists marching through the streets of Charlottesville are
really no objectively worse than the peaceful counter-protestors? Taken to this
extreme, doesn’t this vision of equality actually deprive our shared commitment
to anti-racism of any objective moral authority?

Her friend:the issue
isnt that people are born tall, the issue is that stores put all the good ish
on the top shelf. As Tyler said in her first comment, its not about individuals
benefiting, that's not oppression, its the system as a whole that we should
push back against, in all possible ways, to change and see difference as simply
a difference not a way to rank/judge/qualify people. also, in your example, a
disabled person not being able to find a job is not just about them being
"unlucky" (and I would bet a lot of disabled people would bristle at
that description), but also very much about the fact that we as a society see
contributions and worth in only one way. We choose not to be accommodating at
all, we choose to not consider those unlike ourselves when we build schools and
businesses and institutions. Its not about campaigning for allowing everyone to
do things they are unable to, or not considering advantages like height, etc,
its about being more inclusive and understanding and accepting as a whole
society. IMO, morality is a totally different subject. I think there are too
many contingencies and complexities to life, society, experiences, and humans
to ever look at these sorts of things as finite or separate.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

(This has been in my In Progress
folder for a while but I didn’t get around to finishing it until now.My apologies for the outdated subject matter
from about one year ago.)

In
response to the Korryn Gaines shooting, the far-left Crunk
Feminist Collective wonders “why
don’t we know how to talk about this?”They then proceed to justify the assumption inherent in their question,
by demonstrating just how ill-equipped to talk about it they really are.

For
example, their next question is “why do
SWAT Teams serve traffic warrants?” They eventually deduce that it’s because
of white supremacy’s intersection with the patriarchy.

Maybe…

……

…but
maybe it has to do with how sometimes, the person being served the warrant is
waiting on the other side of the door with a shotgun?

This is the
problem with getting too reflexive with a single ideological analysis.When your only tool is a hammer, everything
is a nail.And when you’re a member of
the far-left blogosphere, the only way you’re allowed to analyze events is by
layering new axes of privilege on top of the old.OF
COURSE the “Crunk Feminist Collective” thinks Korryn Gaines death was
caused by white supremacy’s intersection with the patriarchy.What else do they know how to say?

The tragic
part of their insistence on cramming everything into a gender dichotomy is that
I AGREE with them on the issue of militarized police.It’s a real problem! They’re right to identify it.It’s just that whenever the problem isn’t
racism or sexism or some other form of institutional bigotry, or is more
complicated than merely “some combination
of those things”, they lack the tools through which to fix it.

In this
case, without any real familiarity with libertarian theory, the left is
completely blind to how this
particular case cuts the other way on militarized police.Korryn Gaines is the exact person for whom
SWAT teams were invented, not because she was a black female, but
because she was willing to shoot policemen before she was willing to submit to
arrest.In fact, there’s no evidence the
Baltimore police were decked out in SWAT gear at all until they found themselves on the wrong end of her barrel!To insinuate that bullet-proof clothing and
helmets (really the only thing separating SWAT officers from regular officers)
were deemed necessary not because she had a gun, but because she was a black
female, is exactly the sort of unfounded and counter-evidentiary claim that
makes the right wing so fed up with the race card: after a certain point, it
becomes a bit of a stretch.

A more
robust progressive analysis might point out that civilians wouldn’t face nearly
so many SWAT teams if there weren’t nearly so many warrants to serve.It would point out that in a world containing
many people who are willing to die before they submit to police, we should be
mighty selective about which offenses are dire enough to justify calling their
bluff.It would argue passionately that
things like unorthodox driver’s licenses, or smoking pot, or evading cigarette
taxes, or even evading most other kinds of taxes are not so morally outrageous
that they justify violent force, much less lethal force on those who resist
violence.And it would carry that
argument to its logical implication: that things like driving without state
permission and smoking pot should be legal; that we ought not enforce
taxes on cigarettes or most other things, and should not enact taxes we ought
not enforce.

CFC continues: “Apparently, the only armed
Black folks we can be outraged for are men like Alton Sterling and Philando
Castile.But isn’t the logic the same
though?Submit or die…The state kills
Black women and all Black people who don’t submit.” Meanwhile,Black Girl Dangerous argues
that “Non-compliance is not an
unreasonable response to oppression.Murder is an unreasonable response to non-compliance.”

….Well I
hate to say I told you so!

I can’t
begin to describe how long I’ve been waiting to hear progressives say that
sentence, because it’s the first step to enlightenment. It’s particularly refreshing because
ordinarily, when libertarians lament how all
government amounts to “submit or die,” we are laughed out of the room.

There is
an elephant in the room here, and it isn’t misogynoir.They aren’t acknowledging it, but white men
who resist traffic laws with guns are
also told to submit or die just the same, because THAT’S WHAT
GOVERNMENT IS!Government is a
collection of laws, enforced by “law enforcement” agents, who are instructed to
induce submission and kill anyone who
resists that submission for long enough.That’s literally their job description.

But to
most people, and especially most progressives, it still all appears so
benign.“Support funding for reproductive justice!” they say of Planned
Parenthood.They don’t ask the follow up
questions.With what resources? “Tax dollars!” What if I won’t pay?“They’ll
just deduct it from your bank account.” What if I’m paid under the table,
or empty my bank account and put it all under my bed? “Then they’ll just come take it there.”And what if I lock my door?“They’ll
kick it down.”And so on, until:

“And what
if I put up a sign that says “Trespassers Will Be Shot!”, and defend my
property from any armed invaders who I believe have no right to be there, to
include people in funny hats who dare call themselves ‘the police’ without even
showing me any “Delegation of Authority Orders”?

Eventually,
the statist becomes so frustrated at my stubbornly principled noncompliance
that they admit the heart of it: “Well…then
they’ll probably kill you.” Submit or die.

If you
are okay with laws saying vehicles have to be registered, that means you are
okay with killing people who resist arrest for not registering their
vehicles.If you are okay with cigarette
taxes, that means you’re okay with killing people like Eric Garner, who refuse
to be punished for circumventing those taxes.That’s the definition of a law:a
thing law enforcement will make you do at implied gunpoint, until you call
their bluff, at which point it becomes literal gunpoint.The list of things I find so morally
imperative as to justify that threat is extremely small – which is why I’m a
minarchist.To argue that “murder is an unreasonable response to
non-compliance” across the board
is to lay the groundwork for anarchy.

The reason people on the left “don’t know
how to talk about this” is that people on the left don’t get that yet.BLM activists are happy to talk about
dismantling patriarchy because they GET how it intersects with racism.Feminists are happy to talk about dismantling
white privilege because they understand how it intersects with sexism.Both are happy to talk about dismantling
homophobia or transphobia, because they see how that can overlap as well.And they’re all eager to talk about dismantling
capitalism, because it comports with this same leftist identity-politics
thought pattern: just another layer of oppression people must navigate.But the moment I start talking about
dismantling the state, the entire progressive community exiles me to the far-right
hate-group loony bin.They’re so deeply
invested in statism as the quickest perceivedsolution to those other problems that
they cannot identify the largest, most deeply rooted, and most consistently
oppressive force of all human history.

I
understand the historical reasons why they react this way – libertarianism has
been a deceitful hiding place for too many closeted racists in the past – but
those reasons don’t make the reaction any more productive or any less
stupid.The state istheprimaryinstrumentof human oppression.It is not some neutral body which could be
used for good if only it were captured by the right people, any more than
patriarchy is a neutral institution which could be salvaged if we’d only work
out the kinks. The state is the most deeply entrenched of all oppressive
structures, and libertarianism is its antidote. Consistently applied political
liberty is the most potent force for anti-racism we can possibly unleash. At
the very least, it deserves a seat at the table in these conversations.

The CFC concludes: “when we pursue a
social analysis that fails to robustly consider patriarchy alongside challenges
to white supremacy and capitalism, we’ll miss the convergence of violent
logics.”They got two of three!But, unfortunately for them, when we pursue a social analysis that fails
to robustly consider statism alongside challenges to patriarchy and white
supremacy, we miss the most violent logic of them all.